From appraisal to emotion: Differences among unpleasant feelings

Ellsworth, Phoebe C.; Smith, Craig A.

doi:10.1007/bf00993115

Cited by 574 publications

(475 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

434

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…198-199) pointed out that a number of eminent observers of human conduct dating back to Aristotle had proposed that anger arises when a threat is attributed to a "freely acting" external agent. Supporting such a notion, in some studies (e.g., Ellsworth & Smith, 1988) the perception that an external agent had brought about the unpleasant event was a principal determinant of this emotion.…”

Section: Externally Produced Frustrationmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Several analyses (e.g., Ellsworth & Smith, 1988;Lazarus, 1991;Roseman, 1991;Weiner, Graham, & Chandler, 1982) build on these observations and contend that anger cannot arise unless some external thing is seen as the cause of the offense. Nevertheless, both clinical observations and experimental results indicate that subjectively aversive conditions can generate anger even when an external entity is not seen as the cause of the negative situation.…”

Section: Must There Be An External Cause Of the Negative Event?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward an Understanding of the Determinants of Anger.

Berkowitz¹,

Harmon‐Jones²

2004

Emotion

473

409

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research bearing on several popular conceptions of the major determinants of anger arousal indicates that the particular appraisals often identified as causes of anger frequently only serve to affect the intensity of the anger that is generated. Research into effects of physical pain or other physically unpleasant conditions or involving social stresses suggests that decidedly aversive conditions are a major spur to anger. Experiments are also reviewed showing that anger-related muscular movements can also lead to anger-related feelings, memories, cognitions, and autonomic responses. Alternative explanations for the findings are discussed. The authors urge emotion theorists to widen their methodology and analyses so that they give careful, detailed attention to the many different factors that can influence anger.A great many people are angry at one time or another. After surveying studies dating back to World War I, Averill (1982) concluded that "Depending upon how records are kept, most people report becoming mildly to moderately angry anywhere from several times a day to several times a week" (p. 1146). Perhaps because this emotion is so common, 1 specific definitions of this term often vary in detail (see Averill, 1982;Kassinove, 1995, for reviews of the many different usages of this word), and there are many different, and even opposing, cultural beliefs prescribing how and when this affective state should be managed.Although there certainly is no shortage of research articles dealing with anger, investigators inquiring into the development and functioning of emotions would do well to devote more of their effort and ingenuity to the study of this particular affective state. It obviously is a socially very important emotion, one that has attracted a great deal of attention in the mass media as well as in the various health fields, but it also presents emotion theorists with a number of intriguing conceptual questions. As just one example, there is the often-assumed relationship between hedonic valence and approach-avoidance inclinations. According to Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, and Tellegen (1999), positive affect is typically associated with approach tendencies, whereas negative arousal is usually linked to an urge to avoid the instigating stimulus. Anger seems to be relatively unique in this regard and is often associated with approach rather than with avoidance inclinations (see Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998;Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001). Then too, research into the conditions under which anger is aroused can also touch on the metatheoretical controversy as to whether emotions can be evoked independently of cognitions. Although we do not want to revive the now well-worn argument as to just what is involved in the concept cognition, if one adopts the relatively restricted definition favored by Izard (1993) and Zajonc Leonard Berkowitz and Eddie Harmon-Jones, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.We thank the individuals who provided valuable comments on previous versions of this article: Jack B...

show abstract

Section: Externally Produced Frustrationmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Must There Be An External Cause Of the Negative Event?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Understanding of the Determinants of Anger.

Berkowitz¹,

Harmon‐Jones²

2004

Emotion

473

409

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike the prior study, however, high effort predicted interest and the effect of certainty didn't replicate. In their retrospective study devoted to negative emotions (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988a), a similar appraisal structure emerged. High pleasantness and high attentional activity again predicted interest.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures.

Turner

Silvia

2006

Emotion

155

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Appraisal theories have emerged as a powerful perspective on the elicitation and differentiation of emotional experience (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003). Given the general acceptance of the appraisal approach, a central task for modern appraisal research is to refine and reconcile the predictions made by appraisal models. The agreement among different appraisal theories is substantial, yet there are cases in which different theories make inconsistent predictions. To date, few studies have directly compared the competing predictions made by different appraisal theories (see Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990). The present research examines two competing appraisal models of the emotion of interest, an emotion associated with curiosity, exploration, and knowledge-seeking

show abstract

“…Social intuitionist notions propose that people react to fairness-related events based on their intuitions and gut feelings (Haidt, 2001(Haidt, , 2003Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993). In contrast, rationalistic models (e.g., Pizarro & Bloom, 2003) argue that fairness reactions are actually shaped and formed by deliberative or rationalistic reasoning processes, and that people's affective reactions to a situation largely depend on the cognitive appraisal of the situation and the surrounding context (e.g., Ellsworth & Smith, 1988;Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000;Weiss et al, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%